Yes, some might expect that, but they'd be wrong. If there's been any evening out at all ( arguable ) then its been painfully slow. If levelling salaries is supposed to acheive this, then how come we usually see the same names at the top of the amateur ( i.e. cap of ZERO) game?

It also costs the game lost talent...and not the small list of obvious 'names' that go to NRL or RU, but the far more insidious loss of of future players before they ever pick up a ball - kids who don't see RL as something to have a go at, because it doesn't look like a big glamorous sport.

People still claim, stupidly, that the only alternative is a couple ( or even one ) dominant club and bankruptcy, but that's nonsense. There are plenty alternatives to just raising or scrapping the cap. The main thing is to have very tight squad limits for those on 'star' wages so that a very rich club can't stuff the bench and reserves with players who should be in someone else's first team. But other than that, if you're lucky, or clever, or successful enough to have the money, I'd like to see you spend it. On star players - the one thing that's guaranteed to raise the game's profile far more than these miracle "marketing campaigns" people seem to think is the only missing piece. Sign a Dan Carter, or SBW, or heck, even Johnny Wilkinson, and you'd get 100 times the profile boost than you could ever buy from a PR agency.

Totally agree. There remain various pairings capable of generating a big game with a big atmosphere, but these are the minority of fixtures. Rugby League, like all sports, is at its best when the game 'matters'. Wigan vs Saints, Hull vs KR, etc. always 'matter', history makes sure of that, but for the rest, the competition structure has to provide the sense of meaning. Its not quite right just now. On the one hand, the top eight system has unfortunately taken some pressure off the top sides to finish high, and on the other I don't believe either that it acheives the aim of giving the lower clubs something 'to play for', because I don't think a side finishing in 8th place realistically thinks it means more than one or maybe two more games. Stretching it to 8 was a tacit admission that a bunch of clubs were never going to get a sniff at top five, and lack of relegation makes that an awfully long list of clubs who's second half of the season would be, essentially, friendlies. We need to take a step back and ask why we really need so many playoff spots. Can we fix these ever-uncompetitive sides or do we need a smaller elite league? Or something else? Whatever the answer, an 8 team playoff isn't it.

As a sport RL does not develop enough players at top level and the altering of the junior level structure this season does not help matters. As part of their license all SL clubs should have had to field U15s, U16s, U18s and U20s teams.

I don't agree with peoples idea that reducing the number of teams will create a closer competition. Even if we reduced it to 8 teams, we're still going to get a team that finishes bottom and gets beaten every week as the 7 other teams are better than them. Parramatta finished bottom of the NRL last season, they got humiliated at the weekend again, do you think the NRL are considering reducing the number of teams there?

If we want to bring back competitive league games, bring back P&R and reduce the dilute play-off system to 6.

Yep, I make it that in 2003 there were 91 overseas players in SL. In 2013 I make it that there are 89. Which doesn't sound that good until you factor in there are now 2 additional teams. And that will only go down as the current exemptions return/retire.

If Super League is so easy to predict and uncompetitive, someone - Mr. Eve seems to be the chief candidate can post the results up on a Thursday/ Friday morning and we can all go to the bookies and make a few quid.

Really? Every week?

If we are going to reduce the league were the displays by Widnes and Hull KR today, them volunteering for the chop???

There are worse teams in SL, who put up better performances today. Why? Because the coaches gave a damn.

Betts and Sandercock waved the white flag pre-match. How then do the players motivate themselves? They don't.

The only thing that today proved is that if the coach is not motivated for a game, neither are the players. If this league carries on being a tight league then come the end of the year, teams like Salford and Wakey maybe happy they faced up today, as the points difference maybe important.

Also did Widnes fare much better in the same fixture last year???? 66-6 to Huddersfield. That was without back to back games.

It wasn't that long ago Wigan lost 70-0 to Leeds and then IIRC 75-0 to Saints. Obviously not Super League material that club. Kick em out.

Indeed. They faced relegation. It was stressful. Fans rallied around, club took action, things CHANGED and the club improved. Amazing what the motivation of P&R can do. Happened back in 1980 too, only this time it was too late to avoid the drop. Club got its backside in gear after the unthinkable, and came back up stronger.

Alternatively, just reward mediocrity with another year of Sky money, and guess what you get. When Wigan had their most recent flirt with relegation, how do you think it would have turned out if there'd been no threat of going down? Would fans have turned up in *increased* numbers just to watch their team play badly, at the bottom of a division, without consequence? Would the major changes that put the club back on track have happened?

If Wigan had been 'kicked out' that year it would have been a fair reward for the state of things. Fortunately, the threat was enough, but if it had taken actual relegation, then so be it. If failure has little or no consequence, don't expect dramatic improvement.

Indeed. In fact, Wigan were 'motivated' to spend £200k more than they were supposed to on player salaries in order to stay in the league.

In that respect, not much really changed for "The Wigan Club" I suppose.

I wonder how many who think Super League is a joke also think Sandercock is a joke because two games in a weekend is just how we do things here.

The enforcement of rules is a completely separate issue. If Wigan broke the rules to a sufficiently serious degree that the RFL believed they ought to have been relegated anyhow, then I wouldn't have argued. ( The rules remain ill-conceived, but you still have to follow what you sign up to each season ). If they'd gone down, then so be it. If a p*sspoor Wigan had been allowed to just hang around without consequence I'm certain they'd have taken much longer to get back near the top.

Allowing p*sspoor leadership to stick around without consequence or accountability...hmm...surely the RFL wouldn't agree with that kind of thing?

Also in 2003 there was no Catalans Dragons although their reliance upon imported talent isn't as strong as it used to be.



How does that belief apply to coaches? Don't they fear failure and its consequences? Are you suggesting that they don't and that the only way to instill dramatic improvement for teams is to re-introduce promotion and relegation? If anything scorelines before P&R were abolished were worse than they are now e.g. 9th placed Salford conceding 96 at Bradford.

I make it Catalans currently have 9 overseas players in their squad, which is joint 2nd worst with Hull KR after London with 12. The best improvers have been Hudds (8 down to 4), Cas (9 down to 5) and Hull FC (10 down to 6). The worst, interestingly, being Saints and Widnes both increasing from 6 in 2003 to 7 in 2013.

I knew we weren't the best but that's terrible. There's at least two of those out of contract at the end of this year although both will probably be exempt from quota so may end up elsewhere or stay (Meli is resident and Laffranchi has EU status, I'm not 100% on either status being exactly correct)

I think it's a consequence of losing key players (Sculthorpe, Cunningham, Long, Lyon/Gidley) in a relatively short time, something Leeds will probably suffer from in a few years time.
Yeah I dont know of their exact status with regard to who is Overseas Quota or Non-Fed Trained or anything like that, for instance everyone knows Pat Richards has an Irish passport but I think we can all agree he's an overseas player. So I just went with those who I think most people would agree was an overseas player.
It'll be interesting over the next few years as those exempt from the Non-Fed Trained list are slowly retired or move on and the amount of overseas players reduces further. More pressure will come upon clubs to produce and develop quality players themselves.

Wigan - 4 (Green, Lauaki, Richards, Gelling).

5 if you want to be pedantic - Hansen, despite UK residency since being a young child.

Last season Leuluai, Carmont, Lima & Finch all left the club and have been replaced (Green being the sole exception) by UK talent, mostly via the successful Wigan Academy.

Going forward (and from what I've heard) expect Lauaki to be offloaded at the end of the season. Gelling is also OOC and will probably leave.

That's what I've got, I meant best improvers as in those who reduced by the most, those clubs reducing by 4 players. Wigan, if my figures are correct, had 6 overseas players in 2003. Nick Graham, Craig Smith, Julian O'Neill, Adrian Lam, Quentin Pongia and Brett Dallas. Incidentally, the squarest chin I've ever seen!

I was replying to a poster who tried to defend London's continuing presence by questioning whether Wigan should have been kicked out when they were c&£p. As I Wigan fan I say, if they'd finished last, yes. For a town like Wigan, even bankruptcy doesn't scare me like its supposed to terrify us all into thinking the tiny cap is a good idea - Wigan would find a way to get a new club going from the ashes, I'm certain of that.

The occasional blowout score doesn't bother me so much ( it happens in RL) as carrying a core of clubs who enter each season with nothing to play for ( finishing eighth is more or less meaningless if you don't stand a chance against a big club that's actually trying). At the start of the football season, every club has something to play for, even if its just staying up.

Without a protective financial structure such as parachute payments, P&R is tricky, we know, but if we stick with franchising we need to put more heat on clubs like London, so that there's a genuine threat of being kicked out should they fail to meet minimum targets. I'm all for bring supportive and giving clubs time, but that doesn't extend to tolerating the same people delivering the same c£&p over and over with no sign of improvement.

Particularly so since our chairman blathered on in 2011 about giving yoof a chance (which was fine in 2011 when we were building a new stadium and needed to recruit on the cheap but in fact he's turned out to be a politician).

Jamie Ainscough as well. Counts as 0.99 of an Overseas player if you include Gleeson's tooth.

Did that retire Ainscough, or am I remembering wrong? Didn't he get a bad blood infection?

Saints have 7, do they? Soliola, Manu, Perry, Laffranchi, Hohaia, Meli and Tony Puletua.

Mmm. TP, Perry, Meli and Laffranchi are all OOC at he end of the year. If rumours are to be believed, Perry's latest injury is a career ender. Puletua is also strongly rumoured to be leaving. For the salary I imagine Boof's getting, I wouldn't worry about keeping him on. Meli will get another year, i reckon.

I don't think you'd get anybody arguing with that in principle. Unfortunately where it gets a bit undermined is when we consider that, unlike say football, the likelihood of their replacements being able to grasp the mettle is lower. I'm not using that as an excuse for mismanagement in Super League just fleshing out the picture around it. That's a Super League issue first and foremost and is unlikely to change without a significant cash injection into the RFL i.e. the clubs have the money and therefore the power currently. They are able, rightly or wrongly, to dictate the way that part of our game goes.

Yet we've played about 23 different Brits this season . . . . .

Do you seriously not think Saints are giving youth a chance this season?